The decision of the Supreme Court on liability in international freight transportation

In international freight transportation, the consignor and carrier are determined solely on the basis of official documents.

In its decision dated 18 February 2026, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan has set out an important legal position regarding the determination of the identity of the consignor and the carrier in a case concerning damage to goods during international freight transportation.

Facts of the Case

Based on an oral agreement reached between the claimant and the defendant (an individual), the defendant undertook to transport dates to the Russian Federation using a truck he operated, while the claimant undertook to pay a fee in return. As a result of a traffic accident that occurred during the international freight transportation, the goods were rendered unusable, and the claimant sought compensation for the damage from the carrier. 

However, the official transport documents (customs declaration and CMR invoice) indicated another person as the consignor and a legal entity as the carrier. The defendant (the individual) argued that, based on the contract, even if the claimant's claim were to be satisfied, the transport obligation would fall upon the other defendant, because the customs declaration only named the Company as the carrier. He claimed that he was merely the driver for that Company, and therefore the proper defendant to claim damages from should be the legal entity, i.e., the Company.

The defendant, "XXXX" LLC, submitted a written submission opposing the claim and requested its dismissal, arguing that since the official documents named another person as the consignor, the claimant had no subjective right to bring this claim before the court. 

The position of the Supreme Court

With this decision, the Supreme Court has once again emphasised the principle of the primacy of written evidence in commercial relations.

According to the Supreme Court's position, unless rebutted, a invoice confirms the following:

• The existence of a contract between the consignor and the carrier;
• The acceptance of the goods by the carrier;
• Who the goods were sent by;
• Who the carrier is. 

The Court based its conclusion on the following grounds: 

• According to Article 851 of the Civil Code, the consignor is the person in whose name the dispatch of goods is formalised;
• Actual relationships cannot be justified solely by oral explanations; the content of official documents cannot be disregarded;
• The status of the carrier cannot be denied merely by reference to presumed business practices; there must be evidence in the case materials that "does not raise reasonable doubts" to do so;
• The circumstances of the case, which by law must be proven through certain means of proof, cannot be confirmed by other types of evidence.

Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that in disputes concerning international freight transportation, the identification of the consignor and the carrier must be carried out primarily on the basis of official transport documents, and only thereafter should the issue of liability be assessed. Relying solely on oral agreements during freight transportation, using the names of other persons in documents, or failing to pay attention to the proper formalisation of transport documents can subsequently make the protection of rights significantly more difficult.